Every day, we use the natural resources of our state. We are lucky to live in a region with ample farmland, mountains for hiking and biking, and vast areas for wind power and solar energy. As we look to the future, we know new clean forms of energy are needed. To date, Washington is already 9th in the nation in total megawatts of installed wind generation. And, according to the American Wind Energy Association, wind power in Washington saves 2.4 million metric tons of carbon from being emitted yearly.

However, wind and solar can come and go, so relying on them as a primary power source can be a challenge. Nobody wants the lights to go out because the wind isn’t blowing. The power generated by wind and solar traditionally needs to be used immediately, so using the sources as a reliable, base load replacement for existing energy isn’t possible. Luckily, we live in a state where innovation is highly valued by our businesses, government agencies and universities.

Avista Utilities, based in Spokane, was one of 11 utilities to participate in the Pacific Northwest Smart Grid Demonstration Project in 2009. Washington State University was also a partner. In 2014, Avista announced that it would build an Energy Storage Project in Pullman to test the storage capacity of a new type of battery developed by Mukilteo, WA-based UniEnergy Technologies (UET). To develop the advanced battery technology, UET used a breakthrough from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL created a battery that stores up to 70% more than previous versions. Through this work, the organizations have found a way to store wind energy when it’s abundant, so that its power can be used on demand when it’s needed, thus increasing adoption rates and reducing carbon emissions.

Funding for the $7 million project came from a grant from the Washington Department of Commerce’s Clean Energy Fund and Avista matching funds. In an effort to spur development of clean energy technologies, the Fund provides grants to projects that may otherwise lack the capital to get off the ground. Through its own investments and matching grants, Avista has recently invested more than $80 million to enhance the reliability and improve the efficiency of its electric distribution system.

In April 2015, the research became reality. Washington Governor Jay Inslee and other dignitaries were on hand to “flip the switch,” to connect Avista’s Energy Storage Project to the electrical grid. The largest vanadium-flow battery in North America and the E.U. is now located in Pullman, where it is fully online and operational for load shifting, frequency and voltage regulation. Avista is testing seven different scenarios to explore how energy storage can help the electrical grid become more flexible, more reliable and more resilient. The lessons learned will help address one of the biggest challenges facing the energy industry – how to integrate intermittent renewable energy into the electric grid.

Because of a Washington State grant, multiple innovative companies and a world-class public university are leading the way in integrating renewable energy into the electric grid. This is the kind of public and private partnership that can effect real change.

Gov. Inslee, Senator Cantwell and Congresswoman McMorris-Rodgers all have lauded those involved for their leadership and dedication to the state’s energy future. This is but one example of a company looking to advance clean energy through collaborative efforts and another reminder of how Washington businesses are leaders in innovation.

Is climate change causing more severe wildfires? It’s an allegation that many supporters of a new state cap-and-trade carbon tax are making to help their cause. But, scientists are casting doubt on the claim just as cap-and-trade supporters ramp up their claims that Washington’s wildfires are directly caused by our warming climate.

It’s an important discussion. In 2007, the National Science Foundation published a report estimating that California fires emitted 7.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in a one-week period – equivalent to 25 percent of the state’s monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning throughout California and greater than the annual carbon emissions from all of Washington’s electricity generation.

When Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) held a recent press conference to tie the severity and frequency of California wildfires to climate change, he met stiff resistance from scientists (Gov. Brown’s link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say, LA Times, October 19, 2015). University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke called Brown’s allegations “noble-cause corruption.” He’s making unsupported claims about causation between climate change and wildfire in order to advance his policy prescriptions. “That is the nature of politics,” Pielke is quoted as saying, “but sometimes the science really has to matter.”

Much like Gov. Brown, Washington advocates for a new cap-and-trade tax plan are making unsupported claims in order to advance their cause.

More from scientists interviewed or sourced for the LA Times story:

A study published in August by a Columbia University team led by climatologist Park Williams concluded that global warming has indeed shown itself in California, by increasing evaporation that has aggravated the current drought. But Williams said his research, the first to tease out the degree to which global warming is affecting California weather, did not show climate change to be a major cause of the drought.

Even climate ecologists who describe a strong tie between fire frequency and weather say they cannot attribute that connection to phenomena beyond normal, multi-decade variations seen throughout California history.

“There is insufficient data,” said U.S. Forest Service ecologist Matt Jolly. His work shows that over the last 30 years, California has had an average of 18 additional days per year that are conducive to fire.

Here in Washington, noted scientist Cliff Mass has reached similar conclusions when it comes to the connection between wildfires and climate change.

The key question is are Washington’s forests going to store carbon or release it? According to the U.S. Forest Service, Washington stored 2.4 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2012 – the second highest total of any state. We can either manage our federal forests to maximize carbon storage and reduce the incidence of catastrophic wildfire, or we can experience future fires and the extreme pulses of CO2 they emit.

Even in a world impacted by climate change, scientists say, land management policies will have the greatest effect on the prevalence and intensity of fire. A “hands off” approach to active management of federal forests combined with a decade of fire suppression has created fuel for fires that can ignite at any time.

The tendency to make claims unsupported by data will, unfortunately, be a hallmark of any campaign to convince Washingtonians that adopting a cap-and-trade carbon tax is the only way to slow carbon emissions. But, it ignores history. We’ve all made tremendous progress in the last 25 years in reducing carbon emissions – in our businesses, families, farms, and government agencies. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington’s CO2 emissions are now below 1990 levels. Can more be done? Of course, and it should be. But, it will require more collaboration and fewer blunt instruments like the taxes on carbon being proposed.

Washington workers, farmers, families, and employers are united in the goal of reducing carbon emissions in our state. While we often differ on the best way to achieve this objective, our commitment is to engage productively with all Washingtonians on solutions.

On August 3rd, President Obama released the most ambitious carbon-reduction rule in U.S. history. In his words, it is “the single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change.” The Clean Power Plan aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation to 32 percent below 2012 levels by the year 2030, and it set state-by-state targets in order to accomplish this goal. Washington State’s goal is a 37 percent reduction over this time period. But because of its leadership in reducing carbon and our abundance of no- or low-carbon electricity, Washington will already meet its obligations under the new rule.

Why will Washington already comply with a standard that other states are sure to struggle to meet 15 years from now? The abundance of hydropower combined with the use of nuclear power, aggressive deployment of renewable energy, and low-carbon natural gas has given our state the 4th-lowest carbon-emitting electricity generation in the nation. And it’s on pace to get even lower. Washington’s last remaining coal plant is scheduled to phase out of service in 2020 and be shut down in 2025. The plant is the single-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the state, and its removal from service will reduce Washington’s carbon footprint even further.

Washington is a national leader in the generation of renewable energy. The U.S. Department of Energy calculates that the state’s renewable energy represents 92 percent of its overall generation, which comes primarily from hydropower, wind and biomass. The American Wind Energy Association ranks Washington 9th in the nation for installed generating capacity from wind. The industrial sector in Washington has significantly reduced their carbon profile by using wood debris and other biomass to generate electricity at their plants. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, annual carbon emissions from Washington’s electric power are now 6.15 MMTCO2, below the 7.51 MMTCO2 emission levels we experienced in 1990. This is despite a 43 percent increase in population since 1990 and an economy that has more than doubled in size.

But there’s something broader and more fundamental at work. According to the Washington Department of Ecology, the state’s Greenhouse Gas emissions are merely 3 percentage points higher than the levels we saw in 1990. In 2008, Washington adopted a goal to reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and we’re on track to meet that goal. Employers across the state embraced this challenge by investing heavily in plant efficiencies to reduce the carbon intensity of manufacturing and upgrading their buildings to reduce energy use. Washington’s industrial sector now emits 21 percent less carbon dioxide than it did in 1990.

State policies that establish goals and then partner with employers and Washington families to achieve them have proven to be extremely successful. They have allowed Washington residents in every corner of the state to act on their environmental values, but in a way that conforms to the unique needs of their family or business. Governor Inslee is advocating for rigid, top-down government solutions like his cap-and-trade tax plan and carbon cap rule through the Department of Ecology. At a time when these costly policies are being debated, it’s good to remind ourselves how much progress we’ve made as a state and the kinds of policies that have produced that success.

There are few things we value more as Washingtonians than the natural beauty of our state. All of us have a responsibility to safeguard these gifts for future generations. That’s why reducing carbon emissions has been a priority for government, employers and everyday citizens long before Jay Inslee was elected governor.

Washington employers, in partnership with their employees, have reduced carbon emissions through efficiency and new technology.

Commuters have chosen transit, carpools and low-emission vehicles. Because of our hydropower, our electricity generation emits nearly the lowest amount of carbon in the country.

All of these initiatives have given Washington the eighth-cleanest state economy in the country, when measured by carbon emissions.

According to the EPA, Washington’s carbon emissions are now below 1990 levels. Our industrial sector alone has reduced its carbon emissions by 21 percent.

We’ve seen this happen up close. In October 2008, food processors around the region agreed to voluntarily reduce energy intensity in their products by 25 percent over 10 years. They are well on their way.

The leadership shown by every industry sector has been inspiring – from new buildings with LEED certifications to commercial vehicles converting to low-carbon fuels.

Those who say Washington businesses have an opportunity to lead in reducing carbon emissions have not been paying attention. They’re already leading.

The alternative solution that Gov. Inslee and others promoted during the legislative session relied on a cap-and-trade tax proposal that failed to get support in the Legislature.

Why? Because it would raise the cost of energy for everybody and drive jobs out of the state. The governor’s own economists confirmed that his plan would increase the price of a gallon of gas by as much as 41 cents above projections over time and labeled it “regressive” because of its disproportionate impact on fixed-income households.

An independent analysis of the plan concluded that, if it were implemented, Washington would have an average of 56,000 fewer jobs each year than under current projections.

How do we advance our shared goal of reducing global carbon emissions by driving employers from low-carbon Washington into high-carbon jurisdictions like China or Texas?

We support the governor’s goal of reducing carbon emissions, but we differ on the solution. Thanks to the leadership of Washington families, employers, farmers and government, we’re making great progress through collaborative policies that invite each of us to act on our environmental values.

Replacing this success with a blunt, government-run system designed to increase the price of gas and energy does not encourage leadership; it simply demands submission.

Vicky Baxter is the CEO of the Renton Chamber of Commerce. Andrea Keikkala is the CEO of the Kent Chamber of Commerce.

This post originally appeared in the Puget Sound Business Journal on Sept. 25. Read the original, here.

ConAgra foods serves as one of the largest food companies in the United States. If you enjoy products such as Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn, Bertolli pasta or Snack Packs, you’ve enjoyed a ConAgra Product. While ConAgra has manufacturing facilities and sales offices across the world, they have a main office right here in Kennewick. ConAgra believes that we must adapt to changing climate conditions, “Adapting to [it] is much more about what we do than what we say. We have to change how we operate in light of how the climate is changing around us,” said Marcella Thompson, director of sustainability in ConAgra Foods’ Environment, Health & Safety Department.

Washington’s ConAgra Lamb Weston (its potato processing arm) voluntarily joined the sustainable business movement in 2010. (In fact, the Northwest Food Processors Association, of which ConAgra is a member, has been a leader in reducing carbon emissions since 2008.) ConAgra set a goal of diverting 75 percent of its waste from landfills. Once food waste joins a landfill, it produces greenhouse gases. The company met the goal early on and decided to set a further goal of zero-waste-to-landfill. ConAgra accomplished its goal by recognizing facilities making progress toward waste reduction. Seven of the 13 Lamb Weston plants that earned the “Zero Waste Champion Award” are located in Washington.

Washington’s Lamb Weston plants have achieved a 99 percent waste diversion rate. These facilities owe this success to continued efforts by facility ‘Green Teams’ seeking opportunities for improvement strategies in reduction, recycling and diversion while also recognizing the value of recovered material as a potentially profitable product. These ‘Green Teams’ rely heavily on employee involvement, and in fact, award employees who suggest ways the company could reduce waste.

Lamb Weston’s environmental efforts serve as an example of how to create a positive impact in Washington for other businesses. As a result of its efforts, Lamb Weston has reduced its carbon emissions by more than 7% over the past few years and is working towards a 20% reduction by 2020. Lamb Weston’s actions have helped drive down CO2 emissions in Washington. According to the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, emissions from the Industrial sector are now 21% below 1990 levels.

This doesn’t sound like a business that is burying its head in its fields, so to speak. It is leading the way in producing a future with lower carbon emissions in Washington and throughout the country.

Washington businesses have been leading the way in carbon dioxide reduction for years, and it’s resulted in significant changes to the state’s Greenhouse Gas emissions profile. Washington emits less carbon dioxide today than it did in 1990, a key goal outlined in state law. This progress has come about through thousands of employers and Washington families changing their behavior to reduce energy use. A typical example is Inland Empire Distribution Systems Inc. (IEDS), which has provided public and contract warehousing services to the Pacific Northwest since its establishment in 1983.

IEDS is a privately operated third party logistics (3PL) service provider with operations in Spokane and Pasco. The company focuses on four market sectors: industrial, forestry, chemical, and consumer products. IEDS is also the premier railroad transloader with BNSF and Union Pacific Railroads. It offers other services including vendor managed inventory programs, packaging, foreign trade zone, and transportation and freight management. In short, they keep the economy going by keeping products moving.

IEDS is a leader in improving Washington’s environment. The organization has accomplished this by cutting its energy use and carbon emissions, reducing fuel use, and expanding recycling programs. It has implemented revolutionary business practices that are sustainable and energy efficient.

In January 2015, IEDS installed electronic on-board recording devices in their trucks. This allows the company to track real-time drive and vehicle performance information to optimize delivery routes and reduce overall fuel usage. In the first two months after the installation, the company reduced engine idle time by 40 percent and increased mileage per gallon by 8 percent. This move will decrease fuel use by 3,780 gallons. With the overwhelming majority of carbon emissions coming from the transportation sector, this kind of progress makes an impact.

The Washington Climate Collaborative is committed to identifying, developing, and deploying solutions to protect our environment for generations to come. The leadership shown by companies like IEDS is the type of thing that will help us achieve our state carbon emission goals.

On July 28, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced that he would instruct the Department of Ecology (DOE) to set caps on carbon emissions. This comes after his proposed cap and trade tax plan failed to gain traction in the Legislature.

While we applaud the governor’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions, we disagree with this newest top-down regulatory scheme. We are short on details, but what we do know signals that the governor would put limits on the amount of allowable carbon emissions. Employers who anticipate they will exceed those limits would be expected to trade credits amongst themselves or purchase credits.

One of the major concerns we have with this plan is the one-size-fits-all approach it would conceivably take. Some industries, such as paper production or food processing, are just more energy intensive than others, which we’ve addressed in a previous post. If they are to be held to the same standards across the board, it will quickly diminish their competitiveness especially in industries that are heavily dependent on trade.

Industry is leading the way. They aren’t hiding their heads in the sand, but instead suggesting that there’s a collaborative approach to reducing carbon emissions. In fact, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, carbon emissions from Washington-based industry decreased 21% from 1990 to 2011. Our state is on the right track. Only by working together can we accomplish our shared environmental goals.

OLYMPIA, Wash. (July 15, 2015) – Washington Climate Collaborative, a broad coalition of farmers, workers, and employers, today celebrates Gov. Jay Inslee’s signing of a transportation package that provides $16.1 billion in new state infrastructure investments. The new investments will help reduce carbon emissions in the transportation sector, which is currently responsible for 47 percent of all state carbon dioxide emissions. Gov. Inslee’s agreement to set aside his Low Carbon Fuel Standard was widely credited with making the bipartisan transportation agreement possible.

“There is tremendous opportunity to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector through investments in congestion relief, transit, and alternative fuels,” said Cheryl Stewart, executive director of Inland Northwest AGC. “Unlike a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which amounts to a regressive tax on all drivers, this new law takes a balanced approach to reducing carbon emissions in transportation.”

The bill includes $8.8 billion for new road projects. For the duration of the legislative session, the Washington Climate Collaborative has been urging lawmakers to pass a transportation funding bill that alleviates traffic bottlenecks, thereby reducing idle time and lowering our carbon footprint. By finishing roads such as the North-South Freeway in Spokane and SR 167 in Puget Sound, drivers will have more direct routes, which will reduce drive times and emissions.

The bill also includes $1 billion for non-road projects, including bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, and transit. It gives Sound Transit authority to ask voters for additional funding to improve transit, and it provides an extension of the successful Commuter Tax Credit, which helps keep single-occupancy vehicles off the road during peak hours. In a state that already ranks 7th in the nation for public transit use and fewest solo commuters, all of these investments continue our commitment to providing multiple, low-carbon transportation options.

Finally, the bill helps accelerate the conversion of commercial vehicle fleets to alternative fuels, such as natural gas and biofuels. Washington employers and transit agencies have been at the forefront of converting commercial vehicles, and the tax credit will help eliminate the cost gap that often inhibits investments in alternative fuels.

“We are one of a growing number of Washington companies finding a way to reduce carbon emissions through low-carbon investments in our vehicles,” said Steve Salins of Shuttle Express, a Puget Sound-based shuttle company which has converted its fleet to clean-burning propane. “This new law will help make low-carbon fuel conversions even more viable and that, in turn, will keep transportation providers on track to hit state carbon emission targets.”

Through collaborative policies that have support from both Republicans and Democrats, we can strengthen our economy and reduce our carbon emissions. We applaud the legislature and Gov. Inslee for their efforts and look forward to continuing to work together in the future.

Shields Bag & Printing Co. has been a staple in Washington since its establishment in 1935 when Frank Shields opened a small print shop in Yakima. Frank and his sons built a commercial printing business before expanding into flexible packaging in the mid-1950s. Operating as a family-owned business for more than 75 years, the company provides a variety of high quality products from food packaging to heavy-duty bags.

Shields Bag & Printing Company’s full-color printing processes use solvent-based inks, which contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), that in high quantities can be harmful if absorbed into the air. However, the company believes “that helping to maintain a healthy environment is one of our primary responsibilities.” In order to combat VOC emissions, the company has focused its resources in an energy-intensive combustion process called a Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO). RTOs have 99 percent efficiency in destroying VOCs while recovering 97 percent of the heat generated in the process.

Shields Bag & Printing Co. implemented RTOs in August 2014 and is impressed with the benefits thus far. Although RTOs have significant initial capital costs, the potential for lower ongoing operating costs justify the investment. Most importantly, RTOs reduce the company’s carbon footprint.

Shields Bag & Printing Co. estimates these new practices will save enough natural gas to heat more than 325 homes and enough electricity to power over 600 homes each year. The company expects to reduce carbon emissions by 1,500 tons each year while reducing nitrogen oxide by two tons.

The type of leadership shown by Shields Bag & Printing Co. has dramatically driven down CO2 emissions in Washington State. According to the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data, emissions from the Industrial sector are now 21% below 1990 levels. This progress can be traced back to thousands of businesses that are committed to preserving the beauty of Washington for future generations.

On May 19, Gov. Jay Inslee joined his West Coast colleagues Jerry Brown of California and Kate Brown of Oregon in committing to a 35-year plan to achieve an 80 to 95 percent reduction below 1990 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission levels in his state of Washington. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) represents a first-of-its-kind agreement between 12 U.S. states and countries around the world. It’s the type of goal nobody can disagree with: aspirational, values-driven, and utterly detached from a road map to accomplishment.

It’s worth noting that Washington’s current GHG reduction goal for 2050 is 50 percent below 1990 levels. So, the governor is pledging to increase our level of ambition by at least 60 percent (50 percent below 1990 levels in 2050 under current law versus 80 to 95 percent below under his new MOU). He intends to do this through the following measures:

Updating the state’s limits on carbon pollution to reflect the latest science

Ending coal-fired electricity generation in Washington and reducing use of coal-fired power imported from other states

Increased building energy efficiency and renewable energy

More zero-emission vehicles, cleaner fuels and transit

Establishing a cap-and-trade carbon pollution market program

The update to the state’s carbon limits seems innocuous enough as they already exist in law, but they’d need to be increased. On the second issue, he’s essentially taking credit for something already happening: the decommissioning of the only remaining coal-fired plant in Washington. The TransAlta plant in Centralia will see its first boiler shuttered in 2020 followed by the other boiler in 2025.

Items three and four are already major parts of our existing carbon reduction strategies, which have contributed mightily to driving carbon emissions below 1990 levels already. On items one through four, you’d be hard-pressed to find any Washingtonian who wouldn’t embrace a call to continuously reduce air emissions and find collaborative ways to empower people to do their part. It’s the Washington way.

That leaves a “carbon pollution market program,” which continues to be the one hammer in the governor’s toolbox of carbon reduction solutions. Unfortunately, his proposed cap-and-trade system has generated almost no support in the Washington State Legislature, and we don’t expect him to be selling an 80 percent reduction proposal anytime soon. Why? It’s simple economics, as described by his own Office of Financial Management (OFM).

During the governor’s Carbon Emission Reduction Taskforce process, OFM economists presented their analysis on what it would require to meet the current law goal of a 25 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2035. Their analysis shows that the price of a gallon of gas would have to increase by $0.51 by 2020 and $1.47 by 2035 above price projections. Natural gas would increase by 23.1 percent by 2020 and 59.3 percent by 2035 above price projections. Remember, however, that current law targets are 60 percent below his new MOU. So, the impact to families, farms, and employers would be felt well beyond even these dramatic price increases.

The energy price increases the governor would need to mandate in order to meet the projected reduction targets in his MOU would dramatically constrain job opportunities. Energy Strategies modeled OFM’s “high-price scenario” (Figure 22) that was presented at the CERT meeting last fall to analyze the impact to employment. Their conclusion was that driving the cap and trade price to the level OFM suggested to meet current law targets would result in 242,141 fewer Washington jobs annually than under baseline projections. In manufacturing, particularly, you simply cannot drive up energy prices by over 20 percent and not drive down investment in Washington.

This is not lost on the governor. Despite his assertions that his cap-and-trade bill would only hit “big polluters,” OFM said it would immediately increase the price of gas by $0.12 per gallon. If that proposal is having a hard time winning support, surely his MOU to increase that by a factor of four will as well.

All of these declarations make for good press releases, but what do they really accomplish? There is so much more that Washington is doing and will continue to do to lead in the area of carbon reduction, and there is a broad coalition of stakeholders willing to build support for those policies. We wish the governor would spend more time carving a pathway to a bipartisan consensus on carbon reductions here at home, and spend less time making international declarations.

By now, it’s clear to everybody that there’s a lack of support in the Washington State Legislature for the Governor’s complex and costly cap and trade proposal. Rather than let another year slip away without making further progress on policies designed to reduce carbon emissions, we hope the Governor and legislative leaders will seize the opportunity to lead.

Earlier this year, we laid out a number of high-level recommendations for addressing carbon reductions and followed that up with specific endorsements of bills we’d like to see enacted. We believe that any number of these proposals enjoy broad, bipartisan support and, if enacted, will result in meaningful reductions to carbon emissions.

Washington’s already low-carbon economy is getting cleaner. That is our clear trendline and much of it is due to the deployment of new technologies, more energy efficient homes and buildings, and low-carbon transportation options and energy generation. There’s an answer to our question about how we collectively reduce carbon emissions. It’s working together to build on this success by adopting new and better solutions for Washington families, farms, and employers. They hold the key to our state’s progress.

We urge leaders in both parties to find common ground on carbon reduction policies this year. Our coalition is ready to work with the Legislature to build support among a broad spectrum of stakeholders in order to make this happen. Kicking the can down the road is not the right solution when there are actions that can be taken now.

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee heard testimony on Substitute House Bill 1314, the Governor’s latest cap and trade bill. Sixteen witnesses affiliated with the Washington Climate Collaborative showed up to demonstrate the diverse opposition to this bill. We heard from farmers, small forestland owners, manufacturers, including Kaiser Aluminum, and even the Washington Public Utility Districts Association.

Our witnesses highlighted the many troubling aspects of this new, even more complex proposal. Just a sample includes the creation of a new, complicated rebate system that exempts some employers and significantly taxes others, a regulatory structure that will involve five separate government agencies, the phase-in of a significant increase in gas prices and the immediate increase in the price of electricity and natural gas.

In a maneuver sure to raise all kinds of legal and political issues, the new proposal temporarily exempts Washington motorists from the coming gas price increase, while socking it to neighboring states by exempting rebates on production for gas exported out of the state. Oregon, which gets 90 percent of its gas from Washington, will surely wonder why they’re being asked to fund Washington schools when they’re struggling to fund their own.

Schools are an important issue because this version of the bill also changes where the revenue from the proposal would go. Previously, portions of the tax would go to transportation. Because there are now so many proposed rebates, there is less money to be doled out. As a result, this new version earmarks more money for education. Of course we need to fund education, but even the Washington Education Association doesn’t believe this is the way to do it. At the hearing, State Rep. Chad Magendanz asked the WEA witness if cap and trade was “his preference for funding public education.” The reply? “Absolutely not.” (Time code 1:27:00)

It’s no secret that the Governor wants something – anything – to pass on cap and trade. We’re all motivated to reduce carbon emissions, but his insistence on a singular, government-run, complicated solution is just wrong. As this latest proposal shows, the entire effort has descended into an exercise in political horse-trading. With so much willingness to enact proven, collaborative policies that work, we are perplexed as to how desperate this exercise has become.

OLYMPIA (May 14, 2015) – Members of the Washington Climate Collaborative – a coalition of Washington workers, farmers and employers – testified today against Gov. Jay Inslee’s latest cap-and-trade tax plan. Despite supporters’ efforts to re- package a bill that can garner support in the Legislature, farmers and employers – large and small – told House Appropriations Committee members they oppose the new plan.

“We share the governor’s goal of reducing carbon emissions, but we have concerns on the focus on a single, government-run solution. This bill is very complex and sets up a challenging and complicated regulatory program,” said Tom Nelson of Sierra Pacific Industries. “With its focus on new bureaucracies, targeted rebates, and phase-in and phase-out periods, it picks winners and losers and still needs a lot of work. More importantly, it’s impossible to tell whether it will actually reduce carbon emissions.”

Sixteen witnesses who are affiliated with the Washington Climate Collaborative testified at today’s hearing in opposition to the latest cap-and-trade tax plan. They represented small businesses, farmers, foresters, and manufacturers.

“Washington emits little carbon compared with other states, and our emissions are lower today than they were in 1990,” said Terry Willis, a farmer from Grays Harbor County. “If the governor wants to drive down emissions even more, we stand ready to develop collaborative policies everybody can support.”

###

Washington Climate Collaborative is a coalition of Washington State workers, farmers and employers advocating for a reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions. Our mission is to keep Washington a great place to live, work, and play by protecting our environment and economy. Visit www.washingtonclimatecollaborative.org for more information.

When the Governor’s office published information on the economic impact of his proposed carbon cap and trade tax plan late last year, it was nothing more than a series of presentation slides without any real analysis or narrative description. We felt the public needed a more thorough view of the impacts and commissioned a deeper analysis, which we released in early February.

There are many areas of agreement. For instance, both reports find that Washington is, in fact, making true progress towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Our per capita GHG emission rate is now 36% below the national average and has been on a downward trend over the last 10 years – despite growth in the economy and population. Both analyses show that the Governor’s plan will immediately raise the price of gas by $.11 per gallon – $.41 increase above projections over time – and raise costs of natural gas by 22 percent above projections over time. Despite his rhetoric about targeting only “big polluters,” the Governor’s own analysis shows every Washington family will be paying more for energy.

When the Governor’s office finally released a more comprehensive analysis of their plan in March, they reached much different conclusions on the impact on jobs and some other key metrics. That was cause for concern, but so were many mischaracterizations of our analysis they relayed at an Appropriations Committee hearing. We felt it was important to set the record straight.

1) Economic Models: Although the state has used an economic model called IMPLAN before (the economic model the Collaborative used), their cap-and-trade tax plan analysis was conducted using REMI, a closed-source, proprietary tool. One of the reasons we used IMPLAN is its data, algorithms and linkages are documented and publicly available. We can’t say with certainty why our results differ because the economic model the Governor’s office is using for its analysis is proprietary. We can’t trace how it tracks price impacts as they ripple through the economy because its assumptions aren’t transparent.

2) How Taxes Impact Economy: This is where we see the largest difference. Our analysis shows that total worker income will be reduced by about $3.1 billion; OFM’s analysis is much lower. We believe that the OFM analysis only factors in the increased cost of transportation fuel, electricity and natural gas on the individual or business directly paying. The Governor has said he hopes that companies won’t pass these costs on to their customers or consumers. But businesses don’t just absorb higher taxes or costs. They pass them on in the form of higher prices. A full economic lifecycle is much more complex, and our model accounts for three separate ‘tiers’ of effects.

For instance, let’s consider a product like aluminum. The first tier calculates the effects of rising energy prices on a company that manufactures aluminum. The second tier goes one step further and looks at the effect rising aluminum prices would have on industries that rely on aluminum to build their products (such as airplanes). The third tier calculates the price increases of all finished products containing aluminum (such as increased airplane ticket prices) and the exports of aluminum within the U.S. and abroad. All told, we believe the primary reason our analyses differ is because our model takes a more comprehensive look at how the economy truly functions.

3) Jobs and Economic Impact: When economic growth is projected, it creates a baseline for how much growth is predicted over time, in both employment and growth. When policy changes are modeled, it is against that baseline projection – i.e. are we growing slower than projected or faster than projected?

The OFM analysis predicts that as a result of a $1.3 billion annual carbon cap and trade tax, Washington will actuallyincrease job and economic growth beyond current baseline projections. In other words, the implementation of a new $1.3 billion tax will help economic growth. This flies in the face of widely-accepted economic theory. Every family knows that if you are paying your bills and your taxes go up, you have less money to spend on other goods, not more.

Contrary to OFM’s description or our conclusions, our analysis predicts that jobs and the economy will still grow over time. But they will grow below current projections. We predict that over the next 20 years, Washington will have an average of 56,000 fewer jobs each year than under current projections. This includes 6,000 fewer jobs each year in the manufacturing sector. OFM described this conclusion as a loss from current job levels. It is not. It’s a prediction that we will create jobs at a slower rate going forward.